What happend to the space pod in missing seconds?

From our investigation of what forces are like in a collision, we learned that when two

objects collide, a force is exerted on each object. The two forces are in opposite

directions but the same strength. This allowed us to infer that an equal strength force

was exerted on the space station and the pod, but in opposite directions.

As a result, the space station and the pod are moving in opposite directions. We need to

learn more about the effects of collisions on each object’s motion so we can report back

to Dr. Gonzales at the space agency.

You will use physical materials to gather data about

forces in a collision. You will also notice how objects

are affected by collisions. Students will use their

data to infer the force direction for objects in a

collision.

Based on the velocity change of each object,

what did you infer about the direction of forces

during a collision?

• We observed that the velocity of each object changed during a collision, so we can infer

that a force had to be exerted on each object. However, the motion of the objects

changed in different ways.

• The object that was moving forward slowed down, so I can infer that the force must have

pushed backward on this object.

• The other object started moving forward, so the force must have pushed forward on that

object. If one force was backward and one force was forward, then the forces pushed

the objects in opposite directions.

Explanation:

Good Luck!

s the environmental science is a broader field that incorporates many elements of earth and life sciences, whereas ecology is usually more focused on how organisms interact with each other and their surroundings, and often on a very specific population of living things. soo yea

explanation:

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: